Corporativism - your view

[Gil]

Guild Corporatism



Since there seems to be many variations on the subject of Corporatism, I here present mine and ask you to present yours.



Under the Guild-based Corporatism, each and every business, be it industrial or commercial or otherwise is under the supervision of the appropriate Guild.

Each Guild regulates both the acceptance of a new business as well as maintaining control over the quality of the guild members.

Each guild would have a chamber comprised of 21 members, 10 members representing the administration of the guild firms, 10 members representing the workers and 1 president of the guild (or Guild Master) elected by the guild chamber.



This means that worker syndicates would end as all the relations between administration/workers would be dealt within the guild.



The State would regulate only on legal/political matter, drawing a Constitution which the Guilds would have to uphold but at a general stance each Guild would be independent within the law.



This Guild-based system would be applied also into regional government. (And here I’m talking specifically of the Portuguese State).



Each region (province) would have a Provincial Chamber composed of 13 members, 5 representatives of the local industry/commerce/services guilds and 5 representatives of the people (inhabitants of the province), 1 Provincial Governor elected by the registered inhabitants of the province and 2 Advisors of the Chamber, both appointed by the Governor, one responsible for the Finances of the Province and the other by the Law administration.

Of course this is a very simplistic approach since I don’t want to bother you mates with a boring long read.

Cheers

[Perun]

Well Im currently reading two books on the topic of Corporatism, I can post whatever I can find.

One topic thats interest me is how Corporatism compares with other Catholic economic systems, particularly Distributism and Solidarism. From what Ive read Solidarism is very close to Corporatism.

Distributism on the other hand is more like a close cousin. Its very similar, but more in tune with Anglo-Saxon paradigms than with Continental European ones(as Solidarism and Corporatism are). Distributism seems to me more individualistic than Corporatism(again reflecting the different cultures). I'll try to add more later.

[Oskorei]

Originally Posted by Manji

Guild Corporatism

Of course this is a very simplistic approach since I don’t want to bother you mates with a boring long read.

Cheers

No risk of that happening (boring us, I mean). I would have appreciated an even longer read. How do you vision the internal workings of the individual firm/business?

Personally, my idea of the Guild system and how it should work is very close to yours, so there is really no need for me to repeat it

The main problem I have with the Guild/Corporatist system, is the issue of structural change. In the world economy, this takes place by structural crises, unemployment and bankrupcies, but how would we deal with it in a Guild framework so that our economy would not stagnate? My personal solution is that the Guilds should keep an eye on changes in technology and demands, and transfer resources and workers from one part of the economy to the other in an ordered manner. But I am a little disillusioned when it comes to human laziness, so other ideas would be wecome

Also, how should the Guilds/Corporations deal with what the Spanish Anarchists called Individualists, ie. the self-employed who simply refuse to be part of anything larger than their own firm? Should there be a "grey" area of the economy where such people could operate? And in that case, how should they be dealt with if their businesses expand and become large?

[Perun]

Corporatism does differ from country to country(obviously because national characteristics differ).

For example, one of the books I have is titled French Corporative Theory, 1789-1948 by Matthew H. Elbow.

[Gil]

@Oskorei and all: Glad my posting wasn't boring
Well, my personnal view on the subjects you raised is that not only would the economical system be changed but also the Education system. Technical Schools sponsored by the Guilds could better teach those interested in working in a specific area, hence preparing them in a better way then a purely vague university course.
Of course that this type of corporatism/corporativism (both words mean the same actually) denies the acceptance of individual businessman in the sense that they are not affiliated to a specific Guild. For example, a enterprising young man decides along with another one to make a web company. He would need first to join the Guild which rules over that domain of business and from there he is rather free to make is own path, provided he develops his business according to guild laws. Sure, it might sound as it is very restraining and would limit business development but actually it only prevents the already bigger companies of flooding the market and "killing" the smaller companies. Also, with the absence of Unions (labour syndicates) but representatives of the workers it would be easier to solve problems without resorting to labour strikes. I'll post more soon. Now it's time to read your views.

[Gil]

Some might argue that my vision is of an authoritarian state but I couldn't disagree more. Actually my view is that the guild-based system would enable the citizens to live in a “night-watchman state”, basically a minimal state which would consist of the bare minimum that is required to uphold the law: the police, the judicial system, taxation, prisons and the army. With the reduction of the size of the state hierarchy and the promotion of local government the true needs of every population could be addressed more quickly and without so much bureaucracy.



Some other problem occur in modern economy and most economist will tell that protectionism will only work for a certain period of time up to which the population, wanting foreign goods, will cause the protectionist economy to crash. That isn’t the case with my view since the presence of foreign groups/industries would be allowed. For example, let’s take Siemens Nixdorf. Under this type of government Siemens could open offices and production industries in the country, provided they also were part of their specific guild. Being a foreign firm they would need to have at least 90 % of Portuguese workers in general and at least 40 % of the high ranking positions. Of course imports wouldn’t be banned but if the economy isn’t filled with foreign industries which monopolize the costs and prices and has a large variety of national commerce/industry then it’s easier to lower the prices and still have high quality.



Another issue is taxation. Taxation would be divided into provincial taxation and national taxation but the values of taxation would be lowered since welfare and health would be local (provincial) matters while the state taxation would be to pay for the government-ruled institutions (the police, the judicial system, taxation bureaucracy, prisons and the army).



Taxes applied to products would be divided 70% / 30% between provincial government and the State, the biggest share to the provincial government. State taxation would also be applied into development projects.



Another important policy this government would adopt is the partial acceptance of the Maastricht treaty. Specific nationwide quotas would be established for foreign workers, limiting their number and presence in the nation, which would roughly equal less then 2% for non-european nationals and 5% (maximum) for European citizens. All foreigners who would be allowed to work and live in the nation would be forced to visit a local delegation of the State each 3 months as a way for the government to keep track of their current activities.

As I’ve said before this is just a sketch of a bigger idea I’ve been thinking lately, I’ll post more soon.

[Perun]

Corporatism(or at least the Catholic versions of it) has always been based on a minimalist approach to government. Catholic social theory on the model of Feudalism has always advocated for as much power as possible to put at the local levels, so that theres a balance against abuses by the central authority(which is the greater threat since its in least contact with the people at large). This was certainly the approach favored by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclidical Revuom Noarvum(pardon my misspelling).